Allahabad High Court
Sanjeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil ... on 13 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2090
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 59 of 2025
Applicant :- Sanjeet Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 3 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 3.
3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying memo of the application duly supported with an affidavit, it is a most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned cognizance order as well as impugned summoning order dated 30.05.2016 issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate District- Lakhimpur-Kheri and quash the Charge Sheet number 181/2016 against the applicant U/S: 376,315,506 I.P.C dated 08.05.2016 along with the entire proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate District- Lakhimpur-Kheri against applicant in Case crime number- 0111/2016, Case Number 3547/2016 (State of U.P. Versus Sanjeet kumar) on the basis of Compromise have been done between the applicant and complainant/opposite party number 3 dated on 05.09.2024 in the interest of justice annexed as annexure no.-9."
4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 3/victim, aged about 22 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 12.02.2016, the applicant on the pretext of false promise of marriage, established physical relations with the victim in the year 2013 and accordingly the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.
5. It is further stated that victim appeared before this Court on 04.07.2016 and according to the statement of victim and her Advocate that victim/opposite party no.3 was not inclined to continue with the pending criminal proceedings. The order dated 04.07.2016 passed in Case U/s 482/378/407 No. 4189 of 2016 (Sanjeet Kumar Versus State of U.P. and another), is extracted as under:-
"The petitioner is the accused in the charge sheet arising out of Case Crime No. 111/2016 registered with Police Station Kotwali Sadar, district Kheri. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 376, 315, 506 I.P.C. By the present application, the petitioner prays that by invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the prosecution of the petitioner be quashed.
The ground on which the prayer for quashing the prosecution is advanced is that the prosecutrix has no grievance against the petitioner and she has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner.
The prosecutrix, who is the respondent no. 2 herein, is present today before me in person along with her advocate. Her advocate as well as prosecutrix herself, both state that prosecutrix is not interested in going on with the prosecution that has been launched against the petitioner.
Considering the peculiar facts of the case, it appears desirable to me to have the prosecutrix interviewed by a woman advocate practising in High Court, which advocate shall also act as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in arriving at a proper decision.
Ms. Ritu Chhabra, who is present in the Court, is appointed as Amicu Curiae. She shall interview the prosecutrix and make submissions before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Stand over to 25.07.2016.
Til then, the petitioner shall not be compelled to appear before the trial court. "
6. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 3/victim only to pressurize the applicant and his family members, for solemnizing the marriage and during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant the better sense prevailed and parties settled the dispute and now the opposite party no. 3/victim does not want to continue with the case.
7. It is also stated that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the present application and according to the said compromise, the opposite party no. 3/victim does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings.
8. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and present age of the opposite party no. 3/victim i.e. about 30 years, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no. 3/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the opposite party no. 3/victim would be affected as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0111/2016, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
10. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 13.1.2025
Jyoti/-
